[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190124082923.GI32526@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:29:23 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jfehlig@...e.com,
jon.grimm@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, jroedel@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] swiotlb: Add is_swiotlb_active() function
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:27:55PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 05:30:46PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > +bool is_swiotlb_active(void)
> > +{
> > + return !no_iotlb_memory;
> > +}
>
> As I've just introduced and fixed a bug in this area in the current
> cycle - I don't think no_iotlb_memory is what your want (and maybe
> not useful at all): if the arch valls swiotlb_exit after previously
> initializing a buffer it won't be set. You probably want to check
> for non-zero io_tlb_start and/or io_tlb_end.
Okay, but that requires that I also set io_tlb_start and friends back to
zero in the failure path of swiotlb_init(). Otherwise it could be left
non-zero in case swiotlb_init_with_tbl() returns an error.
Regards,
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists